From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/18/00-05:53:00 PM Z
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Rod Fleming wrote:
> >I can't offhand think of one worthy
> > photographer today doing this kind of stereotyped eroticized naked lady --
> > or *sexist* stereotype.
>
> Judy, I wouldn't like to be called disingenuous or anything, but in the
> light of the above, a few names of the photogs whose works upset you would
> be useful. The only one you have named is Mortensen and unless there are two
> (heavens!), he's been dead this long while. You say you don't mind porn -
> you don't specify soft or hard so I presume you mean the lot- because it's
> honest, so, whose photography is it that irritates you?
Rod, 20 years ago I did a column titled "Pornography in the Mainstream,"
meaning advertising, fashion, & other mainstream streams. I doubt I knew
names of many of those photographers (Art Kane is the only one comes to
mind now) whose work was supposedly simple advertising and fashion, but
just happened to be tying up and, to use your term, drooling over, tender
female flesh. You say YOU disdain it: Fine. But it was/is pervasive and
unexceptional and therefore all the MORE harmful.
As I said, photographers taken seriously in the art-photography world
rarely do straight naked-lady, or not without an *angle,* so there aren't
many names to name there. The mode does, however, proliferate elsewhere.
Take, for instance American Photo Magazine, very slick & soft-porny. Who
are the Peter Gowlands of today? I like to think the major photo
manufacturers are finally clued in (though my file is out of date, since I
no longer subscribe to those magazines), but certainly in fashion
photography. (See yesterday's NY Times mag, though I *think* it was
supposed to be a take-off. If not, it was.) Less slick are web sites --
which I will leave nameless ("alt photo" web sites, sorry to say). Have I
said lately that the mass media tend to control our "thinking"?
The only "respected" art-photgraphy figure of recent times I think of at
this moment who tried his hand at naked lady was Lee Friedlander. He
showed his nudes I think at MoMA then at Alfred University about 10 years
ago -- and was heartily trashed for them by the relatively sophisticated
college audience. But the cover of Richard Farber's Historic Photographic
Processes book may be familiar enough to be awful egregious poster girl
for the genre (with more inside). That's presented in an *art* and
*educational* context, apparently thought to give it a pass, but surely
positioned to warp tender minds.
It's no use trying to slough the issue off by calling these objections
anti-nude (ESPECIALLY while praising "humanism"). As noted, two of three
featured photogs in P-F #5 do nudes. Theirs however, are NOT stereotype
girlie pics -- oh-wow-lookit-the-boobs! or POW, ZAP ! NIPPLE!! -- as I get
too many of in the mail. Other than lighting, eyebrow expression & maybe a
"nature" setting, many are hardly different from Playboy. Well, I take
that back: Playboy, which I haven't seen lately, has got to be cleverer.
That's not to say the bulk of photography is so original and creative, but
no other stereotype is so seductive to the unsophisticated and so harmful
to women.
Janet Neuhauser, reviewing the new Photovision magazine in P-F #5, points
out that of 15 photo magazines on the rack at Barnes & Noble for August, 9
had young women in various stages of undress on the cover. So, however
sophisticated *you* may be, it's a given in the photo world. Or what is in
effect the *amateur* photo world. I doubt there's much of it in Aperture.
(Don't give me Harry Callahan -- there are other objections to his naked
wife, but they were not stereotypical girlie pic.)
Keith et al apparently agree that stereotypes of "coon" photography were
harmful. They were also at the amateur, that is, photo magazine level, but
reached a far wider audience than Stieglitz. (I recently read,
heartbreaking if true, that when Stieglitz finally gave up on Camera Work,
it had 26 paid subscribers.) If nobody said to those photographers, hey,
don't do that, it's harmful, who knows, they might be doing it still.
Meanwhile, if Leslie's experience is typical (as, alas, it probably is) a
"regular" photo course outside a relatively sophisticated environment
won't have a clue -- & will attack the messenger. (If Leslie wanted to
make a case, incidentally, she could probably bring charges: The photo
described and the bad grade sound like sexual harassment.)
There is, BTW, now a movement in painting that supposedly "deconstructs,"
or does sexy-zaftig-nude ironically, eg., John Currin, et al. But that's
*presented* as irony (whether you trust that or not). The genre I address
is meant to be taken at, so to speak, face value. Whether you could get
away with similar couched in irony, I know not. But I think it's only fair
to warn the unclued.
> I really don't think it's fair to call Jock Sturges "lousy", though he's
> certainly not my all-time favourite either. The man has absolutely _no_
> respect for feet.
I did a critique of a Sturges seen in the first volume of 21st, The
Journal of Contemporary Photography Culture & Criticism. If I find it on
my hard drive, I'll send it to you. Trust me, the work is lousy. High time
it was looked at other than as heroic victim of J. Helms. The content
would need a thousand-watt transfusion to make it to insipid.
But speaking of photos of naked sick people, there were photos of naked
very OLD people by -- was it a Japanese photographer? -- got some recent
ink. Let me know when a student in Leslie's class brings in one of them.
best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT